MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.188733 of 2018, filed by Muhammad Akram (appellant), against his conviction and sentence in case FIR.
No.245/2014 dated 04.08.2014, registered at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal, in respect of offences under sections 324/379/427/148/149 P.P.C (sections 302/109 P.P.C subsequently added).
2. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal) vide its judgment dated 28.02.2018, has convicted and sentenced Muhammad Akram (appellant) as under:- Under section 302(b) P.P.C to imprisonment for life as tazir. He was also ordered to pay Rs.
2,00,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) to the legal heirs of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) as compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was also extended to the appellant.
The appellant was acquitted from the charges under sections 324/427 P.P.C.
However, vide the same impugned judgment dated 28.02.2018. Haji Imtiaz, Shehbaz, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Yousaf, Ahmad Saeed, Abdul Sattar and Haji Mumtaz (co- accused), were acquitted by the learned trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal while giving them the benefit of doubt.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Rajab Ali (PW-1), in his complaint (Ex.PA/1), on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PA/2), was chalked out, are that the complainant was resident of Chak No.115/L (District Sahiwal). On 03.05.2014, the "mamoozad" (maternal cousin) of the complainant namely Abbas (PW-4), entered into agreement to sell with one Muhammad Younas regarding agricultural land measuring 19-Kanals and 18-Marlas against consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- were paid as earnest money. Agreement (Ex.PT) and receipt (Ex.PT/1). were executed between the parties. The possession of the land was already with father of Abbas (PW-4) as contractor and as per terms of the agreement to sell, the possession of the said land was with Abbas (PW-4) since 03.05.2014. In Khasra No.8/12 (measuring 4-Kanals North), 8/11 (measuring 4 Kanals North), 8/9 (whole land) and 8/8 (measuring 4-Kanals East), total measuring 20-Kanals, Abbas (PW-4), had cultivated one acre cotton crop and one acre Jawaar (maize) crop.
Accused persons, who were closely related with each other and belonged to one group, intended to take possession of the land illegally, whereupon Abbas (PW-4), filed a suit and got injunctive order. On 01.08.2014, the accused persons threatened the complainant party with regard to taking forcible possession of the land. On the intervening night of 2/3-08-2014, at about 1.00 am, Muhammad Akram (appellant), Muhammad Aslam (co-accused since died), Riaz alias Tahri (co- accused since P.O), Ejaz Akram, Abdul Sattar. Ahmad Saeed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Yousaf, Haji Mumtaz. Haji Imtiaz, Shehbaz and Ghulam Rasool (co-accused since acquitted), along with five unknown accused persons while armed with firearms came at the land, where the complainant along with his brother namely Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) and Abbas (PW-4), were sleeping near the cattle for their safety. The accused persons while raising lalkara started firing and asked them to run away while leaving the land, otherwise, they would be done to death. The complainant's brother namely Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), told the accused persons that the complainant party had paid the money regarding the land in question. Muhammad Akram (appellant), then made straight fire-shot with his weapon at Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), which hit on the right side of his nose. Muhammad Aslam (co-accused since died), made a fire-shot, which hit on the left shoulder of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), who fell down. Remaining accused persons made straight firing on the complainant and Abbas (PW-4) but they saved their lives while lying on the ground. On hearing the noise of firing, Sarfraz (PW-3) and Nosher (PW since given-up), came at the spot and took Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) in injured condition near bypass through car and made call to rescue 1122. On arrival of vehicle of rescue 1122, the complainant party shifted Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), in injured condition to the civil hospital. The accused persons destroyed the cotton and Jawar (maze) crops of Abbas (PW-4), while ploughing the same and they also made firing at the spot for about one hour. Abdul Ghaffar was referred to General Hospital by the doctor.
On arrival of the complainant at the spot, he found that accused persons also took three calf, one cart and motorcycle bearing registration No.8314/Sahiwal along with them. Nosher (given-up PW) and Sarfraz (PW-3) forbade the accused persons from committing the theft of abovementioned articles but they threatened the PWs.
Initially the FIR was registered under sections 324/379/427/148/149 P.P.C but after the death of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) on 06.08.2014, offence under section 302 P.P.C, was also added in this case.
4. The appellant was arrested in this case by the police and after completion of investigation the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial court. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge under sections 302/324/148/ 149/427 P.P.C, against the appellant and his co-accused on 17.03.2017, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced fourteen witnesses. Prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of Ex.PA to Ex.PAA. The statement of the appellant under section 342 Cr.P.C, was recorded, wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. In defence the appellant produced documentary evidence in shape of Ex. DA to Ex.DYY.
5. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.02.2018, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant being in league with the local police; that there is a delay of about one day and sixteen hours in lodging the FIR, which has created doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story; that no source of light was mentioned in the FIR and the prosecution eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements while recording their statements before the learned trial Court that they identified the accused in the light of torch; that the recover of pistol 30-bore (P-3), was falsely planted against the appellant and in-fact the empties were prepared from the above-mentioned pistol. which was subsequently shown to be recovered on the pointation of the appellant in order to strengthen the weak prosecution case; that the motive as alleged by the prosecution was not proved in this case and even according to the said motive, there was no reason to commit murder of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), because according to the motive as alleged by the prosecution, it was Abbas (PW-4), who should have been the prime target of the appellant and his co-accused; that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses but the same have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt, therefore, he was rightly found guilty by the learned trial Court; that the appellant was named in the FIR with specific role; that the delay in lodging the FIR has plausibly been explained by the complainant while stating that he (complainant) remained busy in the medical treatment of his brother namely Abdul Ghaffar (deceased); that the complainant further explained at the time of recording of his statement before the learned trial Court that the concerned SHO asked him to first bring the medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), then he will register the FIR and as such the delay in reporting the matter to the police has plausibly been explained by the complainant; that the prosecution eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but their evidence could not be shaken; that the ocular account of the prosecution is fully supported by the medical evidence produced by the prosecution through Dr. Muhammad Ijaz Qutab, Medical Officer (PW-9) and Dr. Syed Nusrat Ali Shah, Medical Officer (PW- 2); that the motive of the prosecution is also proved through the oral, as well as, documentary evidence; that the prosecution case is further corroborated by the recovery of pistol 30-bore (P-3), on the pointation of the appellant and positive report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PS); that the prosecution eye-witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case; that there is no substance in this appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, as well as, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and have also gone through the evidence available on the record with their able assistance.
9. The detail of the prosecution case as set forth in the complaint (Ex.PA/1) on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PA/2), was chalked out has already been given in Para No.3 of this judgment, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same.
10. The occurrence in this case allegedly took place on the intervening night of 02/03-08-2014, at 1.00 a.m (night) but the matter was reported to the police on 04.08.2014, at about 6.30 (p.m) i.e., with the delay of about one day and sixteen hours from the occurrence. No plausible explanation for the abovementioned gross delay in reporting the matter to the police has been mentioned by the prosecution eye-witnesses and the complainant simply stated in the FIR that he remained busy in the medical treatment of his brother Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured, therefore, he could not earlier lodge the FIR. The complainant while appearing in the witness box improved his statement to justify the abovementioned delay in lodging the FIR by stating that the concerned SHO asked him to first bring the medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured) and thereafter, he (SHO), will lodge the FIR but no such reason was given by the complainant in the FIR. Moreover, it is not understandable that as to why the medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured), was not issued by the concerned authorities/Medical Officer to the complainant for a period of one day and sixteen hours and no explanation in this respect has been brought on the record. Dr. Muhammad Ijaz Qutab, Medical Officer (PW-9), who medically examined Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), in injured condition has not stated that he did not issue the medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), on the day of occurrence. It is further noteworthy that as per prosecution case, as many as four prosecution witnesses namely Rajab Ali complainant (PW- 1), Sarfaraz (PW-3), Abbas (PW-4) and Nosher (given-up PW) were present at the spot, at the time of occurrence but none from them bothered to report the matter to the police, on the night of occurrence. If the complainant was busy in the medical treatment of his brother namely Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured), then the remaining prosecution eye-witnesses could have reported the matter to the police but none from the said witnesses informed the police about the occurrence, within reasonable time. The abovementioned gross delay in reporting the matter to the police shows that the occurrence was unseen and the FIR was lodged after issuance of medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured), which (MLR) was prepared on 03.08.2014, at 2.30 a.m. The FIR was lodged after one day and sixteen hours of issuance of medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured$, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the FIR was lodged after deliberations, consultations and going through the medico legal report of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased/the then injured), so as to bring the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses in line with the medical evidence, hence no sanctity could be attached to such FIR. The said gross delay further shows that the occurrence was unseen. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the case of "Akhtar Ali and others v. The State" (2008 SCMR 06), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to observed as under:- "...........It is also a settled law that delay of 10/11 hours in making FIR not explained leads to inference that the occurrence was unwitnessed."
11. As mentioned earlier, the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 02/03-08-2014, at 1.00 a.m (night). No source of light was mentioned in the FIR. Although the prosecution eye- witnesses at the time of recording of their statements before the learned trial Court stated that they identified the accused persons in the light of torch but no such source of light has been mentioned in fie contents of the FIR. No torch through which the accused persons were identified by the prosecution eye-witnesses, has been taken into possession through any recovery memo. by the Investigating Officer. Although learned counsel for the complainant argued that the torch through which the prosecution eye-witnesses identified the appellant and his co-accused was broken due to the firing of the accused persons as stated by the Investigating Officer Nazir Ahmad SI (PW-14) but no such statement was made by any prosecution eye-witnesses that due to the tiring of the accused persons, the torch through which they identified the appellant was broken. As per site plan (Ex.PG), there was a distance of 92-feet between the accused and the PWs. therefore, in the darkness of the night, identification of the appellant from such a long distance is not free from doubt. As mentioned earlier, no source of light was mentioned in the FIR and although the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements recorded by the learned trial Court that they identified the accused in the light of torch but even the said torch with the help of which the prosecution eye-witnesses allegedly identified the appellant and his co-accused was not taken into possession during the investigation of this case. Even no broken torch was taken into possession vide any recovery memo. Under the circumstances, identification of the appellant by the PWs in the darkness of night is not free from doubt. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the cases of "Umar Hayat etc. v. The State" (1997 SCMR 1076) and "Nazeer Ahmad v. Gehne Khan and others" (2011 SCMR 1473), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan discarded the prosecution evidence about identification of the accused in the torch light, on the ground that the torch with the help of which the accused was identified was not produced before the Investigating Officer, therefore, the accused was acquitted from the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt.
12. It is further noteworthy that the prosecution eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements in order to strengthen their weak case. They were confronted with their previous statements and the dishonest improvements made by them were duly brought on the record.
Relevant part of the statement of Rajab Ali (PW-1) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "..............I had mentioned in Ex.PA that the accused persons were previously known to me.
Confronted with Ex.PA, where it is not so recorded. I had got written in Ex.PA that we were present in our Dhari. Confronted with Ex.PA where word Dhari is not mentioned. I had got written in Ex.PA that Akram accused was armed with 30-bore pistol. Confronted with Ex.PA where it is not so recorded.
Similarly, I had mentioned Aslam accused armed with 30-bore pistol. Confronted with Ex.PA where the word 30-bore was not recorded. I had mentioned in Ex.PA that the other accused were armed with 12-bore guns, 7-MM rifle, 44-bore rifle. Confronted with Ex.PA where it is not so recorded.
Voluntarily stated that I mentioned that the accused persons armed with firearms weapons. It is incorrect to suggest that more than 2-1/2, years after the occurrence, I, for the first time dishonestly improved my statement in order bring my evidence in line with medical evidence"
Relevant part of statement of Muhammad Saziaraz (PW-3) reads as under:- " ......I had mentioned in statement before the Investigating Officer that Rajab Ali, Abdul Ghafar and Abbas were sleeping in their cattle shed to guard their cattle. Confronted with Ex.DE where the word cattle shed is not mentioned. It is incorrect to suggest that as there was no cattle shed and I dishonestly for the first time introduced cattle shed just to show our presence with mala fide intention for the first time in my examination in chief about three years other the occurrence. I had mentioned in Ex.DE that Akram and Aslam (since murdered) were armed with 30-bore pistols.
Confronted with Ex.DE where it is not so recorded. I had mentioned in Ex.DE that the other accused persons mentioned in examination-in-chief along with five unknown culprits were armed with 44- bore rifles, 7-MM rifles and I2-bore gun. Confronted with Ex.DE where it is not so recorded at all. I had mentioned in Ex.DE that we were having torch lights with us in whose lights we identified the accused persons. Confronted with Ex.DE where it is not so recorded at all. It is incorrect to suggest that about more than three years after the occurrence, I for the first time dishonestly introduced the factum of having torch lights with us just in order to fill the lacuna and deficiency of the prosecution case as we failed to mention any source of light in FIR as well as in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, on 04.08.2014. I had mentioned in ELDE that as we are neighbors and resident of the same village, therefore, we knew each other. Confronted with Ex.DE where it is not so recorded. I had mentioned in Ex.DE that Younas was closely related to the accused persons whom, they got transferred his agricultural land in the name of Zakir Sandhela deceitfully.
Confronted with Ex. DE where it is not so recorded. It is incorrect to suggest that I dishonestly improved my statement with mala fide intention. I had mentioned in Ex.DE that the accused persons had made straight firing upon us and we save ourselves while lying on the ground and luckily; saved. Confronted with Ex.DE where it is not so recorded."
Relevant part of statement of Muhammad Abbas (PW-4) reads as under: "..........I had mentioned in police statement that we were asleep in our cattle Dhari. Confronted with Ex.DF where it is not so recorded. I had mentioned in Ex.DF that we identified the accused persons in the torch lights having with us as well as they are our co-villagers having their agricultural land adjacent to us. Confronted with Ex.DF where it is not so recorded. I had mentioned that Aslam and Akran accused were armed with 30-bore pistols. Confronted with Ex.DF where it is not so recorded.
I had mentioned in Ex.DF that other accused armed with 44-bore rifles, 7-MM rifles and 12-bore guns. Confronted with Ex.DF where it is not so recorded. I had mentioned in Ex.DF that after the firings of unknown culprits upon myself and Rajab Ali, Satfraz and Nosher PWs attracted to the spot after hearing the reports of fire shots. I had mentioned in Ex.DE that Muhammad Younas was relative of accused persons from whom, they deceitfully got transferred his agricultural land in the name of Zakir Sandhela. Confronted with Ex.DF where it is not so recorded".
It is clear from the perusal of the evidence of the abovementioned eye-witnesses that they were not sure about the kind of firearms used during the occurrence, therefore, they did not specify the kinds of firearms in the contents of the FIR or in their statements recorded by the police and they stated in general terms that the appellant and other accused persons committed the occurrence with firearms instead of specifying the said firearms as pistols, rifles or guns 12-bore etc as they stated before the Court. They also did not mention the source of light or presence of any "Dhari" at the spot in their statements recorded by the police and they made dishonest improvements in their statements recorded by the learned trial Court in order to cover the abovementioned weaknesses in the prosecution case. They, were confronted with their previous statements and the dishonest improvements made by them were duly brought on the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its number of judgments was pleased to observe that a witness who makes dishonest improvements in his statement on material aspect of the case, in order to fill the lacunas of the prosecution case or to bring his statement in line with the other prosecution evidence, is not worthy of reliance. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments reported as "Akhtar Ali and others v. The State" (2008 SCMR 06) and Irfan Ali v. The State" (2015 SCMR 840).
13. As per prosecution case, the motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Abbas (PW- 4), purchased agricultural land from one Muhammad Younas through agreement dated 03.05.2014. Muhammad Abbas (PW-4) cultivated the said land and he also filed a civil suit against the accused persons, therefore, due to the abovementioned grudge, the accused persons committed the murder of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased). Although it has been argued by learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the prosecution also produced documentary evidence in order to prove the alleged motive but without commenting upon the merits and demerits of the said documentary evidence, if the prosecution case regarding the abovementioned motive is considered to be true, even then there was no reason for the appellant and his co-accused to commit the murder of Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) because according to the prosecution's own case, it was not Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), who purchased the disputed land from the abovementioned Muhammad Younas or he filed any civil suit against the appellant and his co-accused rather it was Muhammad Abbas (PW-4), who purchased the land in question, cultivated the same and filed a civil suit against the accused party.
Under the circumstances, Muhammad Abbas (PW-4), should have been the prime target of the accused party in this case who was statedly present at the spot at the time of occurrence but he did not receive a single scratch on his body during the occurrence. The prosecution story does not appeal to a prudent mind because if the abovementioned motive was against Muhammad Abbas (PW-4), then as to why the said Muhammad Abbas was spared alive and in his place Abdul Ghaffar (deceased), who had nothing to do with the disputed land, was murdered. I am, therefore, of the view that the abovementioned motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved in this case and even on the basis of said motive, the prosecution case is highly doubtful. Reliance in this context may be placed on the case reported as "Muhammad Zaman Mangat v. Muhammad Akhtar and others" (2004 SCMR 757), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan at page 760 has held as under:- "10. The motive is the previous murder of one Safdar Iqbal. The FIR of that case indicates THAT Ghulam Rasool complainant and his companion, Muhammad Azam were the nominated accused for the murder of Safdar Iqbal. Had they been present on the spot, they would have been the first target of the assailants. This is a strong circumstantial evidence which seriously points to the absence of complainant and his companions from the spot."
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of "Saleem Khan v.
The State and others" (2021 SCMR 1472) and "Rohtas Khan and The State" (2010 SCMR 566).
14. Insofar as the recovery of 30-bore pistol (P-3), on the pointation of the appellant is concerned, there is no need to discuss the evidence qua the abovementioned recovery because I have already disbelieved the prosecution evidence qua ocular account and the motive in preceding paragraphs of this judgment, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted merely on the basis of above-mentioned recovery which is only corroborative piece of evidence. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of 'Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and others v. The State and others' (2009 SCMR 436), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan at pages 443 and 444 has held as under:- "After taking out from consideration the ocular evidence, the evidence of identification and the medical evidence, we are left with the evidence of recoveries only, which being purely corroboratory in nature, in our view, alone is not capable to bring home charge against the appellant in the absence of any direct evidence because it is well-settled that unless direct or substantive evidence is available conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of any other type of evidence howsoever, convincing it may be."
Similarly in the case of 'Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan and others' (PLD 2006 SC 538), at page 543, the following dictum was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan:- "It is a settled law that, even if recovery is believed, it is only corroborative. When there is no evidence on record to be relied upon, then there is nothing which can be corroborated by the recovery as law laid down by this Court in Saifullah's case 1985 SCMR 410."
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Muhammad Yaqub v. The State' (1971 SCMR 756), and 'Nek Muhammad and another v. The State' (PLD 1995 SC 516).
Similarly in the case of 'Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan and others' (PLD 2006 SC 538), at page 543, the following dictum was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan:-
15. Although it has been argued by learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that Muhammad Akram (appellant), remained an absconder in this case for a considerable period and his abscondance corroborates the prosecution case against him but it is by now well settled that when a person is named as a murderer, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the judgments reported as "Liaqat Hussain and others v. Falak Sher and others" (2003 SCMR 611), "Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif and another" (PLD 2008 SC 298) and "Baqir Hussain and 2 others v. The State and another" (2018 YLR Note 78).
16. I have considered all the aspects of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against Muhammad Akram (appellant) beyond the shadow of doubt. It is by now well settled that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In the case of `Tariq Pervez v. The State'
(1995 SCMR 1345), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1347, was pleased to observe as under:- "5.......The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in our country. For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while reiterating the same principle in the case of "Muhammad Akram v. The State" (2009 SCMR 230), at page 236, observed as under:- "13.....It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
17. In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, I accept Criminal Appeal No.188733 of 2018 filed by Muhammad Akram (appellant), set aside his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 28.02.2018 and acquit him of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in custody, he be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.